 A reduction in the period of notice
required for oral questions from ten to three sitting days.

 A sharp reduction in the number of
oral questions accepted for printing for each day.

 A restriction of named day questions
to a daily quota of five.

 The replacement of planted questions
by formal written statements.

80. The Procedure Committee also recommended the
introduction of Topical Questions on the lines of the procedure
followed in the House of Lords. We did not reach a view on this
proposal and await a decision on the report of the Procedure Committee.

81. The procedures of the House already provide a
well-tried mechanism for raising issues of urgent topicality in
the form of Private Notice Questions. However, their title is
technical and obscure to the uninitiated. We recommend that
Private Notice Questions be renamed Urgent Questions.

82. Implementation of even part of the recommendations
of the Procedure Committee will have a substantial impact on Question
Time. We intend to revert to this topic after the House has had
a year's experience of any new arrangements.

83. Under the sitting hours we have proposed above,[16]
any statements will be taken at 12.30 pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays
and Thursdays and should normally last for about an hour. We are
keen to minimise the necessary reduction in debating time from
statements and to improve the predictability of opening speeches.
We recognise that this may mean from time to time that some Members
may not be called to put their question, but this has to be balanced
against the consequence that a larger number of Members will be
squeezed out of the subsequent debate the longer the statement
proceeds.

84. We are concerned by the drift towards longer
contributions in the short time available for statements. We are
anxious that there should be a fair balance between contributions
from the front benches and from the back benches. We propose that
Ministers should aim to confine their opening statement to within
ten minutes and that the official Opposition should aim to confine
their response to within five minutes.

85. We recommend that the full text of a statement
should be made available to Members as soon as the Minister sits
down or at the same time as a statement is given to the Press
Gallery, whichever is the earlier. This would remove the resentment
sometimes felt in the Chamber when Members can see the text of
the statement being handed out in the Press Gallery when it is
not available in the Chamber. As it is not practical for Members
who wish to intervene to leave the Chamber to call at the Vote
Office, we invite the House authorities to consider how copies
of the text might best be made available within the Chamber.

86. By their nature many statements are agreed at
short notice in order that the House can hear the Government's
approach to emerging issues. Others though may be planned well
in advance to accompany publication of a policy document. As a
result the press will sometimes know of a forthcoming statement
in advance of Members. It would be helpful to Members if on Monday
morning notice was posted of known statements for that week.

95. We recommend that on occasion the allocation
of time in the Chamber should be a half day, with a full day's
debate still being allocated to a measure when it is justified
by its controversy or the degree of interest in its provisions.
This will be relevant even to those occasions when the House considers
remaining stages, where one and a half days may often be more
appropriate than a single day's or two days' debate. Consultation
would be required between the parties on whether a specific topic
justified a full day or a half day.

96. Parliamentary time for debate and scrutiny is
at a premium. It therefore is regrettable that some of that time
can be lost to divisions which are at the expense of proceedings
in the Chamber. This problem will be exacerbated if, as we recommend,
there are more debates ending half way through the day. The Scottish
Parliament has made more efficient use of plenary time and provided
for more predictable demands on Members by designating a fixed
time for divisions. Plainly this would be impractical for proceedings
in committee or remaining stages on the floor of the House. However
the same considerations do not apply when the House is not meeting
to consider legislation. We are unable at the present time to
reach a recommendation on this matter but hope to examine it further
in the next Session.